Date of Decision: April 26, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Television Producer
Field: Television Production and Education
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a juror for the 2010 and 2011 international television competitions, which meets the requirement for judging the work of others in the field of television production.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner claimed membership in an association based on his role as a juror. However, the evidence provided showed that being a juror required experience rather than outstanding achievements, which does not meet the criterion for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The evidence included articles and press releases mentioning the Petitioner’s work. However, the articles did not focus on the Petitioner’s individual achievements, and the press releases did not qualify as major trade publications or major media about the Petitioner.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner’s claimed roles at various organizations did not clearly demonstrate that he held a leading or critical role. Letters from colleagues and supervisors did not provide sufficient details to establish the Petitioner’s impact or critical contributions to the organizations.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The Petitioner provided evidence of a service contract and a letter mentioning infrastructure investments. However, there was no clear documentation of box office receipts, video sales, or other forms of commercial success directly attributable to the Petitioner’s work.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No awards or prizes were documented as meeting the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles and press releases provided did not focus on the Petitioner’s individual achievements in a way that met the criteria.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No evidence was provided that demonstrated the Petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field of television production.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner met this criterion by participating as a juror in international television competitions.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not meet the criterion for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No scholarly articles authored by the Petitioner were provided as evidence.
Leading or Critical Role:
The evidence provided did not establish the Petitioner’s role as leading or critical within his organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
No evidence of artistic exhibitions or showcases was provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence of high salary or remuneration was provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The evidence provided did not meet the criterion for commercial success in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various documents including letters from colleagues, service contracts, press releases, and articles from newspapers. These documents were intended to support the claims of extraordinary ability but were found insufficient in meeting the required criteria for the EB1 classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The documentation provided did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider providing additional evidence or addressing the specific deficiencies noted in the denial if pursuing future appeals or petitions. Consulting with an immigration attorney to better understand and meet the evidentiary requirements may also be beneficial.
